Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

News reports have appeared in the Indian media about the presence of the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter at Daocheng Yading in Tibet, the highest civilian airport in the world.

One article carries a photograph of a J-20 on a rain-swept tarmac, with the aircraft draped in a camouflage net - desert camouflage pattern!

Surprisingly, there are no chocks on wheels (to stop the aircraft from rolling) and the photograph shows a small hill in the background - no identifiable features of the airport are visible.

The photographs, as per the article, appeared in China on the social micro blogging site Weibo and on two websites just "days before PM Narendra Modi travels to China for G-20" and "days after China warned India against deploying BrahMos missile along the Himalayas".

A news brief was also carried as a lead item by its national television arm and the two conveyed an alarmist view of an event that otherwise is a normal milestone in the development cycle of a new aeroplane.

Unfortunately, this view has been generated by many other media articles too, one of which stated that China has moved stealth fighter into Tibet! It is time a professional assessment of the "sighting" of the J-20 in Tibet is undertaken.

That the J-20 programme has entered the low rate of initial production has been widely reported in the press, both Chinese and Western.

After the first prototype flew on January 11, 2011, seven more prototypes have been built for various phases of testing.

The test flying has proceeded at a very fast pace such that the first squadron would reportedly get established in 2017 with aircraft having initial operational clearance.

Many photographs of the aircraft have also appeared, but surprisingly there have been no images of two J-20s flying together or any armament being fired (only images of open weapons bay are available).

The deductions with this type of background information are:

1. The prototype testing of the J-20 is still work in progress.

2. Even though the first squadron may get raised by 2017, the operational capability would not be that of a fully operational squadron as some clearances would come only after all aspects of the flight envelope are explored.

3. The squadron would, in parallel, work up the standard operating procedures and train pilots in basic handling and procedures of the J-20.

4. The aircraft is powered by Russian engines which do not give it super cruise capability (speed more than the speed of sound with no afterburner).

Thus, the J-20 is not a true fifth generation fighter at present. The super cruise capability may come once the indigenous WS-15 engine gets cleared - this is still some distance away as the Chinese are facing problems of reliability in indigenous power plants.

5. It is a well-known fact that the paint work and skin finish play an important role in making an aircraft stealthy; hence, the very casual way in which the camouflage net has been draped on the aircraft in the photo, with loose flapping strings, shows that stealth is not being given its due, despite the hype that surrounds it.

So, is the aircraft really stealthy, for if it was then the net would not have been draped the way it is.

6. That the aircraft landed and took off from an airfield at 14,000ft is indeed creditable (considering that the photo is genuine).

But, this is just half the story. What would be operationally relevant is the information about the payload it carried and the ambient temperatures it operated in.

So, what was the J-20 doing in the high altitude airfield?

The answer is, just what the Indian Tejas was doing at the high altitude airfield at Leh some months back - these aircrafts have operated from high altitude airfields as part of their hot and high prototype testing, which are mandatory as part of clearance of their flight envelope.

What the photo does confirm is that the capability to operate from Tibet may be part of the task for the J-20.

Many more visits to Tibet would be required to test out the aircraft in cold weather conditions, especially an engine start after an overnight "cold soak" in the open.

This test is indeed critical, besides many more to check out its systems, especially the avionics and radar, in the extreme cold conditions that prevail in Tibet.

The appearance, thus, of the J-20 in Tibet being linked to either the visit of PM Modi to China or the decision to place BrahMos missiles on India's borders is incorrect.

It is not "signalling" being done for geopolitical reasons but just part of flight testing that any aviation system goes through.

However, the message that does come through to India is that in some years to come, the Indian Air Force must prepare for the presence of a fifth generation fighter that can operate from high altitude air fields in Tibet.

It can only get interesting from here - the last word on stealth in Tibet has not been said yet.

^^ For some reason, this one always seemed to me like a collage of various things put together rather than an organic aerodynamic design. It doesn't look elegant. Russian+American cocktail.

Well without thinking much I can spot some things which doesn't look stealthy:1. Difference in lateral angle of wing and canards - dihedral vs anhedral 2. Difference in TE angles of canards and wings3. The LERX angle breaks the consistency of LE angles4. Engine exhausts are definitely not stealthy.5. Angle of slant of doral fins vs the vertical tail

^^^ Sir could you ponder on where the CG of such a design would lie and impact in flight with both canards and wings providing lift? The canard is so far back the, moment arm forward of CG will be very small - no?

deejay wrote:^^^ Sir could you ponder on where the CG of such a design would lie and impact in flight with both canards and wings providing lift? The canard is so far back the, moment arm forward of CG will be very small - no?

No "Sir" for me please. You are senior to me in probably all respects.

A good indicator of location of CG is the position of MLG, which logically speaking should be slightly behind the CG. So my guess it lies slightly behind the location of apex of the wing i.e. the location where the main wing LE lines would meet to the centreline of the fuselage.

The moment arm for the canards seem alright to me. Since its a closed coupled canard, it cannot be too far forward from the wing LE (or LERX in this case). The jet is more elongated that I would like, the main wing too far back. For some reason they chose to eliminate the horizontal tail. Once you do that your wing gets pushed back unless you want to use diamond wing a al YF-23 or have larger wing LE sweep angle. Now you also need canard to have good pitch control in the stead of H-tail. But it needs to be sufficiently forward of CG. So there is a gap in you your wing apex and the canard, J20 designers seems to have put a wing LE glove to bridge that gap. It looks like a weird choice of layout. Difficult to say how it helps better. But to me its not as stealthy as the usual four-post tail design.

Liu wrote:well, J31 looks more like F31 and looks more "stealth" than J20,according to many people's thinking.

but,J31 was defeated by J20,when both were the candidates of PLA's next generation air-superiorty-taking bird.

J31's out itself tells us something.

What it tells us is stolen blueprints are not enough to make a carbon copy stealth jet. There's more to it than meets the eye.

There is a reason why US repeated basically the same aero layout in their second stealth fighter. For the same reason other 5th Gen aircrafts look more or less similar. And the reason is - It works..!! Suggesting Unkil didn't see what China could would be rather stupid.

JayS wrote:What it tells us is stolen blueprints are not enough to make a carbon copy stealth jet. There's more to it than meets the eye.

There is a reason why US repeated basically the same aero layout in their second stealth fighter. For the same reason other 5th Gen aircrafts look more or less similar. And the reason is - It works..!! Suggesting Unkil didn't see what China could would be rather stupid.

if you are referring to the f-35 vs the f-22 then your assumption is not correct.

the f-35 was designed with certain trade offs in mind that the f-22 has in stealth.

for instance, the f-35 is not as stealthy as the f-22 in rear of the plane.

this was deliiberately done in order to still fit the mission profile and to save some money.

deejay wrote:^^^ Sir could you ponder on where the CG of such a design would lie and impact in flight with both canards and wings providing lift? The canard is so far back the, moment arm forward of CG will be very small - no?

A good indicator of location of CG is the position of MLG, which logically speaking should be slightly behind the CG. So my guess it lies slightly behind the location of apex of the wing i.e. the location where the main wing LE lines would meet to the centreline of the fuselage.

The MLG is far further forward that one would imagine. Wouldn't that be as deejay says - i.e have the canards just forward of the CG. Maybe that is why those canards are so huge?

JayS wrote:What it tells us is stolen blueprints are not enough to make a carbon copy stealth jet. There's more to it than meets the eye.

There is a reason why US repeated basically the same aero layout in their second stealth fighter. For the same reason other 5th Gen aircrafts look more or less similar. And the reason is - It works..!! Suggesting Unkil didn't see what China could would be rather stupid.

if you are referring to the f-35 vs the f-22 then your assumption is not correct.

the f-35 was designed with certain trade offs in mind that the f-22 has in stealth.

for instance, the f-35 is not as stealthy as the f-22 in rear of the plane.

this was deliiberately done in order to still fit the mission profile and to save some money.

Sorry didn't get you, which assumption exactly?? I was talking only about aero config.

Yes you are correct that there are compromises on stealth features for F35 as you pointed out. The square exhausts reduce the thrust significantly due to losses. In F-35 with single engine, perhaps that was too much a compromise to make. I can think of some other possible reasons too for dropping rear LO requirements. Also its evident that F35 is designed with a significantly different mindset and requirements than F22.

But here I am mostly thinking from front and side stealth, since J20 is clearly not designed for rear LO as well.

JayS wrote:A good indicator of location of CG is the position of MLG, which logically speaking should be slightly behind the CG. So my guess it lies slightly behind the location of apex of the wing i.e. the location where the main wing LE lines would meet to the centreline of the fuselage.

The MLG is far further forward that one would imagine. Wouldn't that be as deejay says - i.e have the canards just forward of the CG. Maybe that is why those canards are so huge?

The MLGs need to be behind the CG with MLG+NG arrangement. Yes they look little awkward - too much forward (Two big engines, entire main wing and lots of fuel in the wing tank - this all makes it look like tail heavy). But still they will be behind the aft most position of CG. The CG cannot be too far ahead from the MLG as well, for ease of rotation (though I am not sure if it will be an issue in statically unstable aircraft, but looking at the main wing position, I would say the CG cannot be too far ahead from the MLG if they want to keep the lift vector still ahead of the CG). Canards are of coarse ahead of CG. IMO ahead enough. The relatively large size is I think to balance the lift from main wing which it too far aft. The centre of lift needs to be forward of the CG for static imbalance. Generally speaking, the canards designed only for enhanced control are typically small. The larger ones are actually for producing significant lift (e.g. Viggen) helping the main wing.

I am thinking about variations in CG with loading of weapons, fuel use while in flight etc. If they put lot of heavy bombs or external fuel tanks under the main wing, that will push the CG behind significantly. How the Chinese are managing CG, I don't know.

JayS wrote:What it tells us is stolen blueprints are not enough to make a carbon copy stealth jet. There's more to it than meets the eye.

There is a reason why US repeated basically the same aero layout in their second stealth fighter. For the same reason other 5th Gen aircrafts look more or less similar. And the reason is - It works..!! Suggesting Unkil didn't see what China could would be rather stupid.

if you are referring to the f-35 vs the f-22 then your assumption is not correct.

the f-35 was designed with certain trade offs in mind that the f-22 has in stealth.

for instance, the f-35 is not as stealthy as the f-22 in rear of the plane.

this was deliiberately done in order to still fit the mission profile and to save some money.

As I have explained elsewhere, the F-35 designers were given a fairly substantial trade space as far as KPP's were concerned. There was no explicit requirement to NOT have F-22 like rear nozzles. Rear aspect RCS was important to them as would be in a strike fighter. Boeing went in with very similar LO, 2D TVC nozzle concept found on the F-22A. Lockheed's concept had a 90 degree TV nozzle for the STOVL proposal and that would have been quite hard to do had they stuck to the Raptor's design. They however, were through separate programs able to demonstrate lower RF and IR signatures of their nozzle design.

While most likely not as good a solution as that used on the F-22 purely for IR and RF signature pov, it does not demonstrate a relaxing of the Rear aspect RCS (this is why BA showed up with the configuration that they had) requirements but merely making a trade for the purpose of risk reduction and using the same nozzle design across the family. The teams were given the freedom to choose this as they were measured on mission effectiveness and not on any one particular hard measurement.

X-32

JayS wrote:The square exhausts reduce the thrust significantly due to losses. In F-35 with single engine, perhaps that was too much a compromise to make. I can think of some other possible reasons too for dropping rear LO requirements. Also its evident that F35 is designed with a significantly different mindset and requirements than F22.

But here I am mostly thinking from front and side stealth, since J20 is clearly not designed for rear LO as well.

The main driver was Lockheed's STOVL design which was locked in place by the time the JSF requirements were finalized. They had through prior work, and company funding created the design and were out to use the program as an event to showcase it as a sufficiently de-risked design. The LOAN allowed them to show a nozzle that had RF and IR reduction work done and was compatible with their STOVL proposal. McDonnell douglsas/NG/BAE proposal had a similar design as well while Boeing went with something similar to the F-22A. The nozzle itself was able to find a place in between a traditional fighter nozzle and the F-22A's nozzle when it came to RF and IR signature work and Lockheed was willing to sell this to the source selection team as being something that was acceptable within he program requirements since it meant commonality across the designs given that it wasn't a secret that Boeing had proposed numerous changes to their STOVL concept for the EMD proposal while Lockheed stuck with essentially the same concept.

Alternate would have been to show up with two seperate designs and leave it to the individual programs to see whether they wanted to fund an increase in the EMD cost on account of design and testing or they wanted to retain commonality and were happy with the trade that Lockheed had made as a part of its design.

^Awesome. I am aware of some work on LO TV nozzle but I didn't know about LOAN. Makes all the sense to chuck the F-22 style rectangular exhaust for LOAN. Some penalty on LO for cost effectiveness, commonality and no loss on thrust. Are LOAN docs in public domain?? I couldn't find much with quick Google search.

JayS wrote:The MLGs need to be behind the CG with MLG+NG arrangement. Yes they look little awkward - too much forward (Two big engines, entire main wing and lots of fuel in the wing tank - this all makes it look like tail heavy). But still they will be behind the aft most position of CG. The CG cannot be too far ahead from the MLG as well, for ease of rotation (though I am not sure if it will be an issue in statically unstable aircraft, but looking at the main wing position, I would say the CG cannot be too far ahead from the MLG if they want to keep the lift vector still ahead of the CG). Canards are of coarse ahead of CG. IMO ahead enough. The relatively large size is I think to balance the lift from main wing which it too far aft. The centre of lift needs to be forward of the CG for static imbalance. Generally speaking, the canards designed only for enhanced control are typically small. The larger ones are actually for producing significant lift (e.g. Viggen) helping the main wing.

I am thinking about variations in CG with loading of weapons, fuel use while in flight etc. If they put lot of heavy bombs or external fuel tanks under the main wing, that will push the CG behind significantly. How the Chinese are managing CG, I don't know.

CG can be managed by making public announcements of the success of J-20.

Those huge canards have to be producing a lot of lift because as you say the mainwheels have to be behind the CG or the plane will sit on its ass like a Paki dog begging in front of a Xhinese. That means that the lift from the wings should cause a pitch down I guess, acting behind the center of mass, to be counteracted by the canards helping to keep the nose up right?

JayS wrote:^Awesome. I am aware of some work on LO TV nozzle but I didn't know about LOAN. Makes all the sense to chuck the F-22 style rectangular exhaust for LOAN. Some penalty on LO for cost effectiveness, commonality and no loss on thrust. Are LOAN docs in public domain?? I couldn't find much with quick Google search.

Few details were made available. I haven't come across any detailed technical write up on the features. International Defense Review had this on it in 1997

A new Low Observable Axisymmetric Nozzle (LOAN), which reduces radar cross‐section and infrared signature emissions, has been ground tested on an F100‐PW‐200 engine in a USAF F‐16 by Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS). LOAN, developed by Pratt & Whitney, is a potential retrofit to the fleet of F‐16s worldwide. LOAN was developed under the Joint Strike Fighter BAA 94‐2 programme to evaluate advanced, affordable technologies. The aim is to produce a system that can be fitted to new‐production aircraft and that is also suitable for retrofit to in‐service types. Stealth is achieved on LOAN by using geometric shaping, advanced cooling and special coatings on internal and external structures. The advanced cooling techniques will more than double the life of the nozzle divergent flaps, according to LMTAS, leading to significant maintenance cost savings. Flight trials of LOAN are now in the planning stage. "We are continually investigating technologies [for] the F‐16 that offer significant improvements," said Carl McMurry, programme manager for LMTAS' F‐16 ejector nozzle integration programme. "The LOAN exhaust system incorporates technologies that... are available now and can significantly improve fielded weapons systems such as the F‐16," he said.

shiv wrote:CG can be managed by making public announcements of the success of J-20.

Those huge canards have to be producing a lot of lift because as you say the mainwheels have to be behind the CG or the plane will sit on its ass like a Paki dog begging in front of a Xhinese. That means that the lift from the wings should cause a pitch down I guess, acting behind the center of mass, to be counteracted by the canards helping to keep the nose up right?

Yes, lift from canards and the fuselage section between the cockpit and the main wing would be balancing the main wing lift.

Not specifically but I have in the past come across some stuff. From what I understand, LO requirements / features did add considerable weight on the F119/F135. Should be similar to what they did on the F119 probably minus some of the more sensitive stuff.

There are pictures of this new J-15 with the re-enforce front landing gear sporting ws-10 engines in the paki def forum. Supposedly, this means an uprated ws-10b according to the chini fanboys (they are in that forum by the hundreds instead of the one or two same sad sack 50-centers we have here.)

Jane's and ONI (Unkil naval intelligence) reported google earth pictures of what looks like steam and EMALS catapults side by side at a PLAN site.

So the chinis are going to have a CATOBAR carrier at some point. Any bets in whether it would be the Russian Storm design the russkis are pedaling to us or a US super carrier ripoff from stolen plans?

The head of the Chinese Air Force has confirmed rumors that the country is working on a new long-range bomber. The plane would replace China's fleet of bombers based on antiquated Cold War designs. It probably will have a large payload, long range, and a stealthy radar profile—but likely won't carry nuclear weapons.

The People's Liberation Army Air Force—the official name of the Chinese Air Force—has relied upon the Xian Aircraft Industrial Corporation's H-6 bomber for 60 years. Originally a copy of the Soviet Tu-16 "Badger" long-range nuclear, bomber, the H-6 has soldiered on in Chinese service since the late 1950s. Apart from bombing frozen rivers to get them flowing again, the H-6 has never actually seen combat. You can think of the H-6 as roughly comparable to the American B-52, but with an inferior bomb payload and range.

Although it has been updated numerous times, including the -K model that entered service in 2009 and came equipped with cruise missiles, the elderly bomber is clearly obsolete. There have been rumors China was working on a replacement bomber, but no confirmation until now, via PLAAF General Ma Xioatian. Ma declared China's intention to develop the new plane during the Air Force's annual Aviation Open Day celebration on September 2.::::

Attempts to launch C-705 missiles from two Indonesian warships during an exercise has failedFailures come against the backdrop of increased spending on Chinese-made weapon systems by Jakarta

The missiles, which were deployed onboard the KCR-40-class missile attack craft KRI Clurit (641) and KRI Kujang (642), each failed at different stages of their launches on 14 September.

Clurit and Kujang each fired a single C-705 missile during Exercise 'Armada Jaya' 2016 which was conducted in the Java Sea.

Both attempts were made in full view of Indonesian President Joko Widodo who was there to witness the exercise from onboard the landing platform dock ship KRI Banjarmasin (592). Accompanying him was TNI-AL chief Admiral Ade Supandi, and Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) chief General Gatot Nurmantyo.

According to TNI-AL sources, the first C-705 deployed on Clurit failed to launch upon command, but fired unexpectedly about five minutes later after the ship's crew failed to observe a misfire procedure.

The missile failed to hit its designated target for the exercise, the recently decommissioned Tisza-class auxiliary support ship, Karimata (960). The second C-705 missile, which was fired from Kujang , failed during mid-flight, and subsequently also failed to hit the same target.

CHina''s "heavenly palace" will come crashing down to earth!It's going to be "going,going,gong" for China's Tiangong! Ha!Ha!

China's Tiangong-1 space station 'out of control' and will crash to EarthChinese authorities confirm the eight-tonne ‘Heavenly Palace’ lab will re-enter the atmosphere sometime in 2017 with some parts likely to hit Earth

China’s Long March 2-F rocket, which took the Tiangong-1 space module into space. Photograph: STR/AFP/Getty ImagesTom Phillips in Beijing and Bonnie MalkinWednesday 21 September 2016 China’s first space station is expected to come crashing down to Earth next year, fuelling concerns that Chinese space authorities have lost control of the 8.5-tonne module.

The Tiangong-1 or “Heavenly Palace” lab was described as a “potent political symbol” of China’s growing power when it was launched in 2011 as part of an ambitious scientific push to turn China into a space superpower.

However, speaking at a satellite launch centre in the Gobi Desert last week officials said the unmanned module had now “comprehensively fulfilled its historical mission” and was set to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere at some point in the second half of 2017.

“Based on our calculation and analysis, most parts of the space lab will burn up during falling,” the deputy director of China’s manned space engineering office, Wu Ping, was quoted as saying by official news agency Xinhua.

The announcement appeared to confirm months of speculation that China had lost control of the 10.4m-long module after it suffered some kind of technical or mechanical failure.

Jonathan McDowell, renowned Harvard astrophysicist and space industry enthusiast, said the announcement suggested China had lost control of the station and that it would re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere “naturally.”

If this is the case, it would be impossible to predict where the debris from the space station will land.

“You really can’t steer these things,” he said. “Even a couple of days before it re-enters we probably won’t know better than six or seven hours, plus or minus, when it’s going to come down. Not knowing when it’s going to come down translates as not knowing where its going to come down.”

McDowell said a slight change in atmospheric conditions could nudge the landing site “from one continent to the next”.

While most of the eight tonnes of space station would melt as it passes through the atmosphere, McDowell said some parts, such as the rocket engines, were so dense that they wouldn’t burn up completely.

“There will be lumps of about 100kg or so, still enough to give you a nasty wallop if it hit you,” he said.

“Yes there’s a chance it will do damage, it might take out someone’s car, there will be a rain of a few pieces of metal, it might go through someone’s roof, like if a flap fell off a plane, but it is not widespread damage.”

Chinese astronaut Liu Yang of the Tiangong-1 mission poses for photographs during the opening ceremony of an exhibition on China’s first space station in 2012.

Wu Ping, the space official, told reporters the lab – which was launched into space amid great fanfare in September 2011 – had made “important contributions to China’s manned space cause” during its four and a half years of service.

She claimed its return to earth was “unlikely to affect aviation activities or cause damage to the ground”.

“China has always highly valued the management of space debris, conducting research and tests on space debris mitigation and cleaning,” Wu said, according to Xinhua.

Wu said Tiangong-1 was “currently intact” and that authorities would “continue to monitor [it] and strengthen early warning for possible collision with objects.”

“If necessary, China will release a forecast of its falling and report it internationally,” she added.

Space enthusiasts who have been monitoring Tiangong-1, and attempting to draw attention to its plight, fear there is a risk – albeit small – that pieces of the falling lab could cause damage back on earth.

“It could be a real bad day if pieces of this came down in a populated area,” Thomas Dorman, an amateur astronomer who has been attempting to track the missing lab, was quoted as saying by the space.com website in June.

China’s first space lab was most likely to land in the ocean or in an uninhabited area, Dorman admitted.“But remember – sometimes, the odds just do not work out, so this may bear watching.”

^^One, it should not be hit until its well within atmosphere else lot of space debris will be created. China has already aggravated the space debris situation last time with its ASAT test. Second, if its to be hit inside atmosphere, ASAT may not be able to do it or might just be an overkill. ABMS is a better solution perhaps which could intercept it in exo-atmosphere, me thinks.

darshhan wrote:At this rate we will soon hear that chinese have developed warp drives. Chinese sure read lots of science fiction.

The wonderful thing about China is that they have no technological difficulties. Everything they touch turns to gold and is rapidly turned from gold to platinum and diamonds

For example the wildly successful J-20 which closed the gap with the US after overtaking Europe and Russia is already getting superceded by the fighter J-31 and now a bomber will appear. All are successful and doing fine as per all reports.